Re: Qt in OE-core

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2376 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:56:04PM +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 13:27:22 Trevor Woerner wrote:
> > question:
> > Should some version of Qt be included in openembedded-core, or should
> > all recipes to add Qt be part of their own version-specific Qt layer?
> > 
> > background:
> > openembedded-core[1] used to include recipes for Qt3, but as Qt3 became
> > old these recipes were replaced with Qt4 and the Qt3 support was broken
> > out into its own layer[2]. We're now at a point where Qt4 is getting old
> > and Qt5 is "current". At some point we'll have to replace the Qt4
> > support in [1] with support for Qt5. But we expect users will still want
> > to use Qt4, so if the Qt4 support in [1] is replaced by support for Qt5,
> > the Qt4 support will need to be broken out into its own layer. Qt5
> > support is currently being developed on it's own layer[3].
> > 
> > This email thread is *not* to discuss when we should replace Qt4 with
> > Qt5, then question is: should [1] include *any* Qt support, or should Qt
> > be always in its own layer to be added as required by the distribution?
> > 
> > If we decide [1] should provide some Qt support, then we can discuss
> > when we should replace the Qt4 support with Qt5 in [1]. But for now it
> > would be nice to reach a consensus on whether or not [1] should include
> > any Qt support at all or if it wouldn't just be easier to always have Qt
> > support in its own version-specific layers to be added as required (if
> > needed) by the distribution configuration.
> 
> I can see some benefits to having Qt in a separate layer, and this is not the 
> first time this question has come up. However, one concern I have always had 
> with Qt being moved out of OE-Core though is that I very much doubt the same 
> will happen with GTK+ and GNOME UI components that we carry, which I think 
> will lead to the (perhaps erroneous, but logical) assumption in new users' 
> minds that we support or recommend these more than we do Qt. Given Qt's 
> popularity in the embedded space I don't think this would be the right message 
> to be sending out.
> 
> Any concrete ideas on how we would address this perception issue?

Link to layerindex in meta/recipes-qt/qt5 directory? :)

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]